03/23/2016 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB89 | |
| SJR2 | |
| HB156 | |
| HB298 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 298 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 23, 2016
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Liz Vazquez, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Colver
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative David Talerico
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 89(RLS) AM(EFD ADD)
"An Act relating to a parent's right to direct the education of
a child; prohibiting a school district from contracting with an
abortion services provider; prohibiting a school district from
allowing an abortion services provider to furnish course
materials or provide instruction concerning sexuality or
sexually transmitted diseases; relating to physical examinations
for teachers; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 89(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to contracting state debt for postsecondary
student loans.
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 156
"An Act relating to compliance with federal education laws;
relating to public school accountability; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 156(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 298
"An Act relating to school districts; and relating to layoff
plans for tenured teachers."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 89
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOLS: PARENT RTS; ABORT. PROVDRS LIMITS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DUNLEAVY
03/25/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/15 (S) EDC, STA
03/31/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/15 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/02/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/02/15 (S) Heard & Held
04/02/15 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
04/07/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/15 (S) Heard & Held
04/07/15 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
04/09/15 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/09/15 (S) <Pending Referral>
04/09/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/09/15 (S) Moved CSSB 89(EDC) Out of Committee
04/09/15 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
04/10/15 (S) EDC RPT CS 3DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
04/10/15 (S) DP: DUNLEAVY, GIESSEL, HUGGINS
04/10/15 (S) DNP: GARDNER
04/14/15 (S) STA AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/14/15 (S) Heard & Held
04/14/15 (S) MINUTE (STA)
04/15/15 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP 1AM NEW TITLE
04/15/15 (S) DP: STOLTZE, COGHILL, HUGGINS
04/15/15 (S) AM: WIELECHOWSKI
04/15/15 (S) STA AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/15/15 (S) Moved CSSB 89(STA) Out of Committee
04/15/15 (S) MINUTE (STA)
02/24/16 (S) RLS RPT CS 4DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
02/24/16 (S) DP: HUGGINS, COGHILL, KELLY, MEYER
02/24/16 (S) DNP: GARDNER
02/24/16 (S) BILL REPRINTED 2/24/16
02/24/16 (S) RLS AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/24/16 (S) Moved CSSB 89(RLS) Out of Committee
02/24/16 (S) MINUTE (RLS)
02/29/16 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/29/16 (S) VERSION: CSSB 89(RLS) AM(EFD ADD)
03/04/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/16 (H) EDC, JUD
03/14/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/14/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/16 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
03/16/16 (H) JUD REFERRAL REMOVED
03/16/16 (H) HSS REFERRAL ADDED AFTER EDC
03/21/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/21/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/16 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
03/23/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SJR 2
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: G.O. BONDS FOR STUDENT LOANS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MACKINNON
01/21/15 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/15
01/21/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/15 (S) STA, EDC, FIN
02/10/15 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/10/15 (S) Moved SJR 2 Out of Committee
02/10/15 (S) MINUTE (STA)
02/11/15 (S) STA RPT 3DP 2NR
02/11/15 (S) DP: COGHILL, MCGUIRE, WIELECHOWSKI
02/11/15 (S) NR: STOLTZE, HUGGINS
02/24/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/24/15 (S) Heard & Held
02/24/15 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
03/12/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/12/15 (S) Moved SJR 2 Out of Committee
03/12/15 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
03/13/15 (S) EDC RPT 3DP 1NR
03/13/15 (S) DP: DUNLEAVY, STEVENS, HUGGINS
03/13/15 (S) NR: GARDNER
03/26/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/26/15 (S) Heard & Held
03/26/15 (S) MINUTE (FIN)
04/09/15 (S) FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/09/15 (S) Moved SJR 2 Out of Committee
04/09/15 (S) MINUTE (FIN)
04/10/15 (S) FIN RPT 3DP 3NR
04/10/15 (S) DP: MACKINNON, BISHOP, HOFFMAN
04/10/15 (S) NR: KELLY, DUNLEAVY, OLSON
04/13/15 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/13/15 (S) VERSION: SJR 2
04/13/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/13/15 (H) EDC, JUD, FIN
03/23/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 156
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES; FED. LAW
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
03/20/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/15 (H) EDC
03/30/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/30/15 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/15 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
04/08/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/08/15 (H) Heard & Held
04/08/15 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
04/10/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/10/15 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/13/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/13/15 (H) Heard & Held
04/13/15 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
03/14/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/14/16 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/16/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/16/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/16 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
03/18/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/18/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/16 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
03/21/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/21/16 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 3/23/16>
03/23/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 298
SHORT TITLE: LAYOFF OF TENURED TEACHERS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TILTON
02/05/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/05/16 (H) EDC
03/23/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR MIKE DUNLEAVY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on SB 89, as prime sponsor.
CHRISTA MCDONALD, Staff
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on SB 89, on behalf of Senator Mike Dunleavy, prime sponsor.
KRISTEN PRATT, Staff
SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 2, on behalf of Senator Anna
MacKinnon, sponsor.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 2.
CHARLENE MORRISON, Chief Finance Officer
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on SJR 2.
MARGARET MACKINNON, Director
Assessment and Accountability
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 156.
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 298, as prime sponsor.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
Representative Cathy Tilton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 298, on behalf of Representative Tilton, prime sponsor.
DR. DEENA PARAMO, Superintendent
Matsu-Borough School District
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 298.
NORM WOOTEN, Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 298.
KAREN GABORIK, Superintendent
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 298.
LISA SKYLES PARADY, Executive Director
Alaska Council of Administrators
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 298.
DR. MARTIN MILLER, Superintendent
Juneau School District
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 298.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:21 AM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives Keller, Colver,
Drummond, Seaton, Vazquez, and Talerico were present at the call
to order. Representative Spohnholz arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
SB 89-SCHOOLS: PARENT RTS; ABORT. PROVDRS LIMITS
8:04:45 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 89(RLS) am(efd add) "An Act relating to a
parent's right to direct the education of a child; prohibiting a
school district from contracting with an abortion services
provider; prohibiting a school district from allowing an
abortion services provider to furnish course materials or
provide instruction concerning sexuality or sexually transmitted
diseases; relating to physical examinations for teachers; and
providing for an effective date."
8:05:40 AM
SENATOR MIKE DUNLEAVY, Alaska State Legislature, introduced his
staff and availed himself for questions.
8:06:02 AM
CHRISTA MCDONALD, Staff, Senator Mike Dunleavy, Alaska State
Legislature, addressed a series of questions previously posed by
the committee, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which
read as follows:
[Question:] Would the provision "recognizing the
authority of a parent and allowing a parent to object
to and withdraw a child from a standards based
assessment or standards-based test required by the
state" put a school district in statutory
noncompliance with state law? Are we now saying that
tests are not required by the state but rather just
suggested by the state?
[Response:] Under current state regulation each
school district is required to administer a standards-
based test. In addition, schools are not allowed to
systematically exclude students from an assessment.
However, no law compels a parent to send a child to
these tests as they are not associated with student
grades or promotions.
8:06:55 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY added that the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) is in flux, and when the reauthorization was being
developed, he said, this is an area that many parents petitioned
congress to change. The original intent under No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) was to ensure that low performing groups were not
excluded systematically by schools to skew the school
performance scores. A number of parents that choose to have
their students excluded, actually have high performing children.
These parents are refusing to have their child participate, as a
form of objection to the data sharing and testing requirements.
8:08:16 AM
MS. MCDONALD continued:
[Question:] Will the language in Senate Bill 89
prohibit a school district from covering the costs of
a teacher's physical examination or suggest that they
may choose whether or not to cover this expense?
[Response:] The language in Senate Bill 89 prohibits
a school district from paying for a teacher's physical
examination. "May not" is used to be in compliance
with the Legislative Drafting manual, page sixty-five
which states: Use the words "may not" to impose a
prohibition upon someone.
[Question:] Would Section 4 of the bill dealing with
physical examinations include fingerprinting and
background checks as well.
[Response:] No, the requirements for fingerprints and
background checks are established in AS 14.20.020 and
would not be impacted by the passage of Senate Bill
89.
[Question:] If we state that a school district may
not pay for these physical examinations do we impact
the teacher's ability to be provided evaluations
through health insurance benefits funded by the
district.
[Response:] As stated in the bill, "This section does
not affect the coverage of any health insurance
benefits that a school district provides to teacher."
SB 89 will not impact any physical evaluations that
are covered under health insurance benefits.
8:09:29 AM
CHAIR KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 29-
LS0735\F.A.9, Glover, 3/22/16, which read as follows:
Page 3, line 23, following "provider":
Insert "who is acting on behalf of the abortion
services provider"
The committee took an at-ease from 8:09 a.m. to 8:12 a.m.
8:12:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion.
8:12:22 AM
CHAIR KELLER said that the language serves to narrow the focus
of who may provide reproductive information in a classroom.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled testimony concerned with
impinging on the summer employment for a teacher who works at a
hospital, clinic, or other medical office.
8:14:04 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:14 a.m.
8:14:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection, and with no further
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:14:54 AM
CHAIR KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 29-
LS0735\F.A.10, Glover, 3/22/16, which read as follows:
Page 3, line 15:
Delete "may"
Insert "shall"
8:15:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER objected, and said existing statute
requires districts to pay for physical examinations, and
changing it from "may" to "shall" represents a substantial
policy change. The decision should be left to the districts to
exert local control and whether or not to implement this measure
as a condition for employment. The background checks are still
required by state law, which are already a condition of
employment. The permissive term should be retained, he opined,
and stated opposition to Amendment 2.
8:17:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ commented that this measure addresses
public safety, and opined that it does not represent an unduly
burdensome task, as a condition of employment. She stated
support for Amendment 2.
8:18:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated opposition to Amendment 2,
echoing the concerns of Representative Colver. It is a major
policy change, she agreed.
8:18:59 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY declined further comment and deferred to the
committee's decision.
8:19:24 AM
MS. MCDONALD offered that existing Department of Education and
Early Development (EED) regulation, 4AAC 06.050, states that
physical examinations "shall" be required of the districts for
teachers, but it does not appear in state statute.
8:19:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER maintained his objection.
8:19:54 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Talerico, Vazquez,
and Keller voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives
Colver, Drummond, Spohnholz, and Seaton voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-4.
8:21:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern for the bill
particularly from the health and social services aspect stating
that, without the sex education programs currently provided to
schools, the levels of unplanned pregnancies and sexually
transmitted diseases (STD's) will increase. Additionally, it
removes local control of school districts, as provided on page
3, lines 22-25, which read as follows:
(c) A school district may not permit an abortion
services provider or an employee or volunteer of an
abortion services provider to offer, sponsor, furnish
course materials, or provide instruction relating to
human sexuality or sexually transmitted diseases.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that this language imposes
rulings over local school boards, and prohibits the use of
curricula that has been publicly vetted, adopted, and utilized
by many districts. The bill is a state usurpation of local
control, he opined, and said it may be the first time the state
has prohibited districts from identifying curricula for use in
meeting state standards and requirements. He stated opposition
to passage of SB 89.
8:23:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that the opt-in requirement
creates a major barrier to children receiving a positive public
health curriculum. The parents already have the opt-out
elective to employ. Additionally, the administrative and
processing of an additional opt-in form is unnecessary.
8:25:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for SB 89 (RLS) am(efd add), as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON maintained his objection.
8:26:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered further objection to the bill,
specifically Sec. 4, which redirects the cost burden associated
with the physical examination requirements of teachers. The
local control currently exercised in this area is sufficient, he
opined.
8:27:00 AM
CHAIR KELLER stated support for the bill as a means to bolster
parental rights regarding an intimate and important aspect of a
child's development.
8:27:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER stated support for the bill, and said a
significant section of it recognizes the authority of a parent
to withdraw their child from standards based assessments. He
opined that this authority is important to have in statute, as a
vehicle to move away from future, federal assessment mandates.
8:28:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated her agreement with the previous
comments regarding the sexual health education aspect of the
bill; however, inclusion of the variety of components causes an
issue and should be addressed separately, particularly the
standards based test concerns. Parents have the right to opt-
out their student, to examine class curricula, and, through the
local school boards, be involved in the development and approval
of curriculum. Thus the proposed opt-in measure creates
additional unnecessary administrative paperwork and is of no
help to districts. Finally, she stated opposition to the bill.
8:30:11 AM
CHAIR KELLER commented:
There's no certification required for this contract
teaching, and that's kind of novel.
8:30:40 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Talerico, Vazquez,
Colver, and Keller voted in favor of CSSB 89 (RLS) am(efd add).
Representatives Drummond, Spohnholz, and Seaton voted against
it. Therefore, HCS for CSSB 89 (EDC) was reported out of the
House Education Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
SJR 2-CONST. AM: G.O. BONDS FOR STUDENT LOANS
8:32:12 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2 Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to contracting
state debt for postsecondary student loans.
8:32:20 AM
KRISTEN PRATT, Staff, Senator Anna MacKinnon, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced SJR 2, paraphrasing from the sponsor
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Senate Joint Resolution 2 proposes to place a
constitutional amendment before the voters during the
fall 2016 general election. This bill amends Article
IX, sec. 8, of the Alaska Constitution and would
authorize state General Obligation (GO) debt for the
purpose of funding state education loans for Alaska
students.
Currently, state General Obligation debt may only be
authorized for capital improvements or housing loans
for veterans.
Financial market conditions once allowed the Alaska
Student Loan Corporation (ASLC) to offer competitive,
low-cost education loans to a significant percentage
of Alaska students without State support. However,
those conditions no longer exist and appear unlikely
to occur again in the foreseeable future. As a result
of these changed conditions, Alaska students and
families are receiving decreasing levels of state
support, at a higher cost, in meeting postsecondary
education expenses.
Senate Joint Resolution 2 will establish a cost-
effective way to finance state education loans by
leveraging the State's outstanding general obligation
credit ratings. Doing so will not only achieve lower
costs of funds than what is otherwise available
through current alternative financing structures, but
will also permit some flexibility of the loan
underwriting criteria which currently results in a 43%
denial rate on loan applications.
These loan programs represent a critical component of
the State's student financial aid system and its
efforts to enhance the workforce development pipeline
in order to build and maintain a healthy state
economy.
8:33:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER ascertained that this would be handled
similar to any general obligation (GO) bond and require a public
vote.
8:34:21 AM
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education
Commission, Department of Education and Early Development (EED),
stated support for SJR 2, and said the expectation is that
[following voter approval] the commission would be returning to
the legislature to support a bill describing the way in which
the bonds would be issued, including, potentially, a cap on the
amount of bonds allowed, as supported under the GO.
8:35:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked what the maximum length of authority
for the GO would be prior to subsequent voting being
requirements. Also, what would be the savings in interest rates
by adopting the use of free GO bonds.
MS. BARRANS responded that statute would be established by the
legislature through passage of a support bill to provide
specifications regarding the length of time that the corporation
would be able to enjoy the ability to issue bonds, as well as
the total amount of debt that would be approved. Texas is
another state that employs the use of GO bonds for educational
loans, where the program functions under a cap. Regarding the
interest rate, she said 1-1.5 percent would be the expectation.
Another benefit of issuing this type of debt, is the underlying
scrutiny required to issue a loan, which lowers the cost of the
loan to the consumer.
8:38:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ queried how the student loans are
currently being financed.
MS. BARRANS responded that loans are financed via cash reserves,
with loans issued previous to 2008 held as bond debt. To a
follow-up question she said the bond debt is approximately $130
million. However, since 1988, she stressed, the corporation has
issued, and successfully repaid, $1.8 billion in bonds.
8:39:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed concern, regarding the
financial leverage expectations of SJR 2, considering the
state's current fiscal situation and the possibility that
Alaska's credit rating may continue to fall.
MS. BARRANS assured members that the GO debt has been discussed
and the 1-1.5 percent interest rate is based on the state
maintaining a credit rating of AA; recently devalued from AAA.
8:41:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the sponsor statement mentions
flexibility for the loan underwriting criteria, which currently
results in a 43 percent, loan application denial rate, as based
on the FICO [formerly Fair Isaac Company] rating. He asked what
the current default rate is on student loans, and whether any
effects on the default levels are anticipated, by lowering the
FICO score requirement.
MS. BARRANS opined that underwriting criteria, when based on a
credit score, may be misleading. A credit score does not
necessarily reflect less of an ability to repay, as much as the
lack of a credit history. The minimum FICO score currently used
by the corporation is 680, which is slightly higher than the
average Alaskan score of 650. By lowering the rate to 650, she
explained, it will align with the average score without
impacting default rates adversely. The current annual default
rate is about 8 percent, and fluctuates in accordance with the
national economic and employment levels.
8:43:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked how a newly emancipated, 18 year old
student could receive a FICO score and, lacking a credit
history, be eligible for a loan.
MS. BARRANS responded that a qualified co-signer is required for
anyone who lacks a personal credit standing. The average
University of Alaska (UA) student's age is 26, thus, the
majority of applicants have a credit score, she said, but 43
percent of the time it's not sufficiently high enough to
qualify. She recalled that loans were initially provided
through the state's general fund (GF), carried no credit
requirements, and demonstrated a default rate as high as 20
percent. Further, early on in the history of the program, a
"credit ready" standard was implemented to support students who
lacked a credit score, again resulting in higher default rates.
8:46:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER pointed out the difficulty in building a
credit history, particularly for young adults who haven't had
opportunities to exercise credit. He opined that it represents
a discriminatory process, and, although debt repayment is
important, a fairness question arises. He asked a series of
questions regarding the typical authority granted the GO bonds
for veteran housing loans, which included: duration of
authority, amounts granted, and balloting interval requirements.
8:48:02 AM
MS. PRATT offered to provide further information.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER expressed concern for establishing an open
ended bond authority.
8:49:05 AM
MS. BARRANS opined that a reasonable voting interim time frame
would be five years, which would provide a frequent enough cycle
for voters to become familiar with the program, note the
benefits, and provide continued support or not. She said this
will also be helpful to older students, who may exercise
refinance opportunities.
8:50:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked who establishes the FICO score.
MS. BARRANS responded that it's handled through the Alaska
Student Loan Corporation (ASLC), via regulation. To a follow-up
question, she said the corporation is governed by a five member
board, comprised of the commissioners from Department of Revenue
(DOR), Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED), Department of Administration (DOA), and two members of
the Postsecondary Secondary Commission appointed by the
governor.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ surmised that the board has the authority
to change the FICO score requirement.
MS. BARRANS concurred, and reiterated that the 680 score is a
barrier, and 650 will mitigate the denial rate.
8:52:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ directed attention to the committee
packet, and the sponsor statement, paragraph three, which read
as follows:
Financial market conditions once allowed the Alaska
Student Loan Corporation (ASLC) to offer competitive,
low-cost education loans to a significant percentage
of Alaska students without State support.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ noted that interest rates have been at
historic lows since 2008, and asked what market conditions are
being referred to in this statement.
MS. BARRANS pointed out that the cost of funds to banks and
lending organizations, reflected in the historically low rates,
are not relative to the cost of bonds issued in the market. The
interest rates on the bonds themselves would need to be
reviewed, rather than the interest rate of funds to lending
organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked what the bonds have to do with the
interest rate being charged by the ASLC, if, as mentioned
earlier, the loans are currently being backed by cash.
MS. BARRANS answered that the loans the corporation makes must
be of sufficient quality to be used as assets to issue bonds in
the market. When the corporation considers its interest rate
sets, it looks at what the rate in the market would be today, if
debt was being issued. In that manner, she explained, the
interest rates on the loans will be appropriate to support the
use of the loans as assets, when the corporation re-enters the
market.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked what the amount of revenues and
expenditures were for ASLC in 2015.
MS. BARRANS deferred.
8:55:13 AM
CHARLENE MORRISON, Chief Finance Officer, Postsecondary
Education Commission, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), responded that the 2015 ASLC revenues totaled
$18 million, and expenditures were $17 million.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked for the 2016 revenue and
expenditure estimates, the corporation's cash value, and reserve
totals.
MS. MORRISON said 2016 estimates have not been established,
although the first six months figures show revenues of just over
$9 million and expenditures approximating $8.8 million, for a
net income of just under $700,000. The unencumbered cash
available for loans is roughly $28 million, which also funds the
operating budget and other corporation expenditures. The
unreserved equity, as of 6/30/15, was $95 million.
8:58:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the question is whether GO
bonds should be presented to the voters to decide whether or not
to allow tax free, lower cost loans to students.
MS. BARRANS concurred, and added that the structure being
contemplated proposes that the corporation would continue to
pledge assets to the bonds for repayment. The action would not
represent a debt to the state; however, it leverages the states
credit to good advantage relative to the market cost of bonds.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said with five commissioners on the board,
and the process requiring legislative reauthorization, the
appropriate protections appear to be in place to support this
bill. He opined on the importance for continued support of
education in the state.
9:01:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ stated an assumption that a resolution
was passed by the board of directors to proceed with this
request for a change in statute.
MS. BARRANS said a formal resolution was not put forward;
however, general agreement on the board exists to support the
action in light of the benefits to the constituents of the
corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether the board has considered
lowering the FICO scores through existing authority.
MS. BARRANS answered that the interest rate has not been
revisited since it was established in 2008. At this point, she
explained that, absent the support that a GO bond authority
would provide, it would be imprudent to take the action to lower
the rate, thus requiring the corporation to substantially over
collateralize the trust from which the bonds are issued. Such
action would create an inefficiency in the use of the corporate
assets.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked about outstanding bonds issued by
the corporation.
MS. BARRANS answered that the last bond issue for new money
occurred in 2007; however, refinancing and restructuring of
outstanding debt has occurred since that time.
9:03:50 AM
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony.
9:04:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER expressed reservations for passing the
bill from committee, and said legislative intent needs to be
clarified. The proposed legislation lacks a clear and concise
record of expected terms and conditions regarding exercising the
authority to put a GO bond on the ballot. The record should
include the anticipated length of the GO bond authority, the
anticipated amount, as well as an accounting of similar
exercises of the constitutional authority regarding veteran's
housing loans, as administered by the Alaska Housing
Corporation. Creating an open ended authority without
appropriate sideboards may result, he opined, and acknowledged
that statutory authority will still exist. A major missing link
is a statement of interest and support from the ASLC board.
9:08:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ noted that the reason to issue the GO
bonds is to allow additional accessibility to loans for
students. The benefit could be garnered by lowering the FICO
score, she said, and pointed out that the ASLC board has the
authority to implement that change. She expressed concern for
issuing bonds, which isn't an uncostly undertaking, and opined
that the justifications for passage of SJR 2 don't appear to
fit.
9:11:12 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced SJR 2 as held over.
HB 156-SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES; FED. LAW
9:11:20 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 156, "An Act relating to compliance with federal
education laws; relating to public school accountability; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee,
adopted as a work draft on 3/16/16, was the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 156, Version 29-LS0566\Y, Glover,
3/11/16.]
9:11:34 AM
CHAIR KELLER passed the gavel to Vice Chair Vazquez.
9:11:40 AM
CHAIR KELLER stated that the first component of the bill is a
means to address the implementation of ESSA and proposes a two
year hiatus for the transition period; effectively suspending
the high stakes testing regimen required by the federal
government. The second component addresses the state school
board reporting requirements, which will be "tweaked" based on
the adoption of the changes made in the first aspect of the
bill.
9:14:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 29-
LS0566\Y.1, Glover, 3/16/16, which read:
Page 3, line 13, following "demonstrates":
Insert "(1)"
Page 3, line 14, following "year":
Insert "; or
(2) maintenance of a proficient or high performance
designation from the previous year"
9:14:47 AM
CHAIR KELLER objected for purposes of discussion.
9:15:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER said the amendment addresses school
district concerns to establish a bar for the purpose of high
performance designations and comparisons.
9:17:20 AM
CHAIR KELLER removed his objection. He explained that an
annually updated, on-line report card, lists the designated,
high performance schools. He opined that even top rated schools
could be served instead via a performance indicator, with better
results. Understanding the standard may be necessary, but the
intent of the bill directs the board to establish considerations
for determining school performance and consistent improvement,
rather than focusing on maintaining proficiency.
9:19:27 AM
CHAIR KELLER removed his objection.
9:19:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected.
9:19:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the current five star rating
system will be effected or whether what is being proposed is in
addition to what exists. An additional system may effectively
double the school rating effort, he surmised, and asked how the
department would align the two approaches.
9:21:21 AM
MARGARET MACKINNON, Director, Assessment and Accountability,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED) responded
that the current Alaska School Performance Index uses a five-
star rating base. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) flexibility waiver [implemented at the beginning of the
2013-14 school year] directed the department to maintain
identification categories to include schools rated as the lowest
performing, as well as the reward status facilities. The
requirements also categorized high progress and high performance
schools. The department is currently experiencing a "pause," in
anticipation of the new assessment system. The passage of ESSA
[ESEA/NCLB reauthorization], allows flexibility for creating an
accountability system, and places the decision making in the
hands of the state. Thus, the type of indicators for inclusion,
and whether or not to continue the star rating method is yet to
be decided. ESSA doesn't require a high performing designation,
she pointed out.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled the establishment of the current
star system, which Alaska may have created to satisfy federal
requirements. However, he said, the current accountability
system, as written, may satisfy the proposed criteria, negating
a need for Amendment 1.
MS. MACKINNON answered that the current requirements for
designating schools has not been changed. She explained that
the existing designations are broad and, under the ESEA waiver,
the star accountability system may meet all requirements. The
provisions are general enough to allow the development of a
modified, or new, state accountability system while recognizing
schools that are improving. Once the high threshold for school
performance is attained, however, it can become difficult to
show continued improvement from year to year. The proposed
amendment language will bolster both situations.
9:25:34 AM
CHAIR KELLER commented that when a school's previous year's
performance becomes the status quo, "it makes me uncomfortable."
The amendment offered allows for an element of improvement.
9:26:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection, and with no further
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:26:48 AM
CHAIR KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 29-LS0566\Y.3,
Glover, 3/18/16, which read:
Page 6, line 18:
Delete "2017"
Insert "2016"
Page 6, line 19:
Delete "2019"
Insert "2018"
Page 7, line 12:
Delete "2017"
Insert "2016"
9:27:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion.
9:27:22 AM
CHAIR KELLER said the intent of Amendment 2 is to address the
department's request for an adjustment of the effective date,
which will allow the necessary time for implementation.
9:28:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER clarified that the intent is to not
require school districts to administer a statewide based
assessment after July 1, 2016; a directive to the state school
board.
CHAIR KELLER concurred.
9:28:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER surmised that testing is being returned to
local control, per ESSA, with the expectation that the
department will develop a meaningful, measurable assessment
system, in concert with local districts, which can be compared
with other state's scores. He underscored the importance for
rebuilding a new state assessment system from the ground-up. A
collaboratively developed framework, with goals and objectives,
would be the best approach, he opined.
9:30:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded committee members that the
federal government has expressed to EED that a two year waiver
is not available, thus, putting the state's federal education
funding at risk. He asked if that is the reason for the
proposed date change.
9:31:40 AM
CHAIR KELLER said the date change allows the department to get
an earlier start for implementing the permissive elements of
ESSA.
9:32:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated support for the concepts
presented in the bill, and expressed concern for unintended
consequences effecting currently enrolled senior students.
Would lacking participation in an assessment them in jeopardy,
as graduates, she asked.
MS. MACKINNON responded no.
9:33:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection, and with no further
objection Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:34:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report the proposed CS for HB
156, Version 29-LS0566\Y, Glover, 3/11/16, as amended, from
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 156(EDC), was
reported from the House Education Standing Committee.
9:34:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER stated support for the bill and said it is
important to retool the educational situation in the state.
9:35:06 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:35 a.m.
9:35:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ returned the gavel to Chair Keller.
HB 298-LAYOFF OF TENURED TEACHERS
9:36:02 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 298, "An Act relating to school districts; and
relating to layoff plans for tenured teachers."
9:36:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 298, paraphrasing from the sponsor statement,
which read:
HB 298 provides an optional tool for school districts
to manage personnel costs through "Reductions In
Force" (RIF).
Currently, AS 14.20.177 stipulates that in order for a
district to be able to even consider a personnel
reduction plan for tenured teachers, one of two
triggers have to be met:
1. School attendance in the district has decreased; or
2. The basic need of the school district decreases by
three percent or more from the previous year.
For a number of school districts, especially the more
populous ones, this is simply a standard that cannot
be met in order to even consider the option for
personnel reductions.
HB 298 simply eliminates the student attendance or
basic need as requirement in order to proceed with the
consideration of a layoff plan.
While it is important to provide districts with
greater flexibility to manage their finances in our
new fiscal paradigm, it is also essential to provide
robust protections for Alaska's teachers so that any
RIF is not done arbitrarily or irresponsibly.
AS14.20.177 (b)-(h) provides that protection through a
very thorough process up to and including arbitration.
HB 298 does nothing to remove or weaken that process.
HB 298 is an option that allows Alaska's school
districts greater flexibility to manage expenses.
9:38:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether there is a threshold to be
considered, regarding a decrease in student attendance.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff, Representative Cathy Tilton, Alaska State
Legislature, responded that, in accordance with AS 14.20.177, in
terms of the actual school attendance only a decrease needs to
exist. The basic needs formula carries a percentage threshold,
he pointed out.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the intent of the proposed
legislation is to gain flexibility for laying off teachers.
MR. HILYARD concurred and said it removes the two existing
layoff triggers while retaining robust protections for tenured
teachers.
9:40:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked about any support from the
districts, and underscored the importance to have input from the
trenches. Tenure is a sensitive issue, he reminded, which must
be tread lightly while gaining a full breadth of understanding
from those effected, as well as from the policy and budget
promulgators.
9:42:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND referred to the committee packet
handouts titled, "District Enrollment by Grade as of October 1,
2015, FY 2016" and "District Enrollment by Grade as of October
1, 2014, FY 2015, compiled by the Department of Education &
Early Development (EED), to note that there doesn't appear to be
an existing urgency. The numbers indicate that enrollment has
increased, she pointed out, and questioned the grounds for the
bill.
9:43:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON deferred.
9:43:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the proposed legislation allows
for reduction in tenured staff, and asked whether it allows for
the retention of non-tenured teachers, at the same time.
MR. HILYARD responded that the bill is silent on the question of
non-tenured teachers.
9:44:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that at some point he will be
declaring a conflict of interest, as a parent and in-law of non-
tenured teachers.
9:45:34 AM
DEENA PARAMO, PhD, Superintendent, Matsu-Borough School District
(MBSD), stated support for HB 298, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read:
I am speaking to you today on behalf of the Mat-Su
School District to express support for HB 298.
Even though Mat-Su is a rapidly growing District, we
continue to be faced with some difficult realities
that these times of limited resources present. We are
a growing District and have not experienced a
reduction in the component of the funding formula
known as basic need. Without having these two
triggers, we are unable to reduce the tenured
workforce, no matter how large our deficit becomes or
what programs we determine should not continue. For us
this has created two realities. We have been forced to
place tenured teachers in positions for which they
were not qualified to comply with the current law and
we are limited when exploring innovative and
specialized programs as we may be required to retain
an individual beyond the existence of the educational
need. The proposed changes to AS 14.20.177 recognize
that there are scenarios where a reduction in the
number of tenured teachers may be necessary beyond the
narrow scope currently in law.
Let me be clear, Mat-Su values highly its talented
workforce. We pride ourselves on offering a top notch
education. However, fiscal realities require that we
at times make difficult choices. We have no intention
or desire to reduce the number of tenured teachers in
our district without careful and deliberate
consideration and even then only when necessary. We
support the proposed bill not because we hope to issue
notices of layoff, but because we appreciate the
ability to consider the needs of the students in our
district and the educational offerings we provide, not
just the tenure status of teachers.
Our current budget, which is based on the assumption
that the Base Student Allocation is increased by $50
and that our contributions to PERS/TRS remain
unchanged, would not require us the issue notices of
layoff to tenured teachers. However, as both the State
and our local Borough have not yet finalized the
funding allocation, we are prepared for a multitude of
scenarios. Realistically, I expect that this would
affect Mat-Su as early as next year, but only on a
limited scale.
9:49:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the bill, page 1, lines 13-15,
which read as follows:
APPLICABILITY. AS 14.20.177(a), as amended by sec. 1
of this Act, applies to a contract or collective
bargaining agreement entered into on or after the
effective date of this Act.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked about the application of this
language to tenured versus non-tenured teachers.
DR. PARAMO said the intention is to work with the collective
bargaining agreements (CBAs) and align the language, following
the effective date of the bill.
9:51:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER noted that MBSD is facing a $9 million
shortfall, and asked what other measures, outside of tenured
staff layoffs, are being considered for controlling costs, such
as freezing pay step increases or adjusting health care costs.
DR. PARAMO explained that the district has previously taken
action to reduce health care costs, and said the district's
intent is to direct revenue to the classroom. She said more
changes will be evident in the FY 18 negotiations. A
comprehensive secondary school program is important and programs
vary between high schools. The secondary schools are more
costly, due to the type of services necessary to prepare
students for college and technical careers. The district has
established a resource sharing program allowing students to
attend the high school which best suits their interests and
goals. Some students may attend three different schools in a
given year to benefit from the resources and services offered.
An example are the welding programs, that are offered at only
four high schools, as the transportation costs for students are
less than the cost of offering welding in every school.
Further, space is being optimized in every facility and private
industry is being cultivated to provide programs. She
emphasized the need to cultivate the best instructors and
programs, which means allowing districts the ability to change
the status quo of staff, as necessary. Districts that are
seeing a decrease in enrollment, have the ability to layoff
tenured teachers; however, due to the growth in the MBSD tenured
teachers must be retained, regardless of what the identified
needs are for the district.
9:57:56 AM
NORM WOOTEN, Director, Association of Alaska School Boards,
stated support for HB 298 paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am speaking today in favor of HB 298. We in the
Association have tremendous support for our teachers.
Research clearly shows that the most important factor
in a student's success is good instruction delivered
by a teacher.
Having said that we find ourselves in increasingly
difficult times and which will likely get worse. As
our states financial situation worsens we will need
all the "tools" you can give us.
We need the ability to keep the "right" teachers in
front of students. This would be the first step in
getting to that ability
Our responsibility is to deliver the best instruction
possible to every student.
Thank you for your time today. I encourage you to
pass this legislation out of committee.
9:59:05 AM
KAREN GABORIK, Superintendent, Fairbanks School District, stated
support for HB 298, agreeing with Dr. Paramo's testimony. It
will assist in the decision making process, especially in
situations that effect tenured teachers. The effective date in
Sec. 2 presents a problem, she opined and recommended it be
amended.
10:01:23 AM
LISA SKYLES PARADY, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ACSA), stated support for HB 298, and said the
bill arose from a list of items that would provide non-monetary
support to school districts in a time of budgetary constraints.
The list was generated through a joint effort of members from
the Alaska Association of School Boards (AASB) and the Alaska
Superintendents Association (ASA). The bill seeks to eliminate
the narrow triggers currently allowed for teacher layoffs, which
leaves the districts with a functional inability to staff as
appropriately as possible. Certainly, tenured teachers are
highly valued, she said, and the bill does not change the robust
process of preferring and protecting seniority. The bill would
provide an important tool for districts at these difficult
times, and she provided a theoretical situation: A district
decides to save money by closing a program, but it is unable to
reduce staff of the tenured teacher carrying the terminated
class. Although the teacher is not qualified to teach any other
district offered curriculum the district must resort to
transferring the tenured teacher into a position for which they
are not qualified or effective. In the end, with the limited
triggering, currently in statute, a negative impact results.
She assured the committee that the layoff plan will be protected
and have public accountability given the requirement for the
local board review. Finally, the ACSA concurs with
Superintendent Gaborik's recommendation to delete the Sec. 2
effective date, as unnecessary language.
10:05:19 AM
DR. MARTIN MILLER, Superintendent, Juneau School District,
stated support for HB 298, and said the only means to continue
to meet budgetary constraints is through reduction in the work
force. Costs increase each year primarily based on the step
increases, which are an attraction for new teachers; however,
with a static income and rising costs, measures must be taken,
he opined. At the second level the specialized programs are the
biggest challenge due to the specialty of the course work
involved.
CHAIR KELLER announced HB 298 as held over.
10:08:08 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:08 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB298 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 3/23/2016 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/1/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 298 |
| CS HB156 Sponsor Statment.pdf |
HEDC 3/23/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |